Safety and Legal Issues

--- spider_boris wrote:
> Okay, good, we agree on this point. I guess my main objection is to
> the hyper-litigiousness (i do believe i just made up a new word) of
> western society, particularly in the USA. Simply put, if I am
> selling a product, I should take all _reasonable_ precautions to
> ensure that said product is safe under all but extraordinary
> conditions... but no more precautions beyond the reasonable should
> be required.

People often sue when what happened to them was their fault. The courts should
be awarding $20 to them when that happens.

> Case in point: notice how every coffee cup at McDonald's has the
> words "caution:hot" printed on the side? This is due to a single
> lawsuit, where a woman claimed she was burned by the coffee. Well,
> duh, it's _coffee_, it's supposed to be hot. This one lawsuit cost
> Mickey D's literally millions, both to settle the suit and to
> reprint all their coffee cups. Why? To protect people without an
> ounce of common sense. Had I been the judge in the case (and it's
> probably a good thing I was not), not only would I have not awarded
> in favour of the plaintiff, I would likely have made her pay McD's
> legal costs and furthermore charged her with contempt of court.

I wouldn't have noticed it because I don't eat there. Also whilst I do agree
it was the plaintiff's fault if I were the judge I'd have given a lot more
money to the plaintiff because the defendant was McD.

> Now, if somebody wishes to put their life in danger, whether by
> attempting Everest, smoking cigarettes, or strapping a rocket engine
> to their ass, I say fine, go hard... but don't expect financial
> compensation to be paid to your family when the shit hits the fan
> (UNLESS your death can be directly attributable to gross criminal
> negligence on the part of the defendant). Don't expect to be paid
> to make up for a lack of common sense. (Aside: why is it
> called "common" sense, anyhow, if it is apparently so uncommon?)

If a person want's to put their life in danger they can do that. It's when a
person undertakes an activity that should be safe that should be regulated. As
for gross criminal negligence it shouldn't be required. Any neglience whether
criminal or civil should be enough. Basically if something should've been done
that wasn't and if the consquences should have been forseen then it is
neglience and should result in sustantial settlement. The reason for neglience
laws is to make sure that reasonable precautions are taken. The laws aren't
intended to protect people from their own stupidity (or at least they shouldn't
be).